That is an extremely limited form of democracy, to only be able to decide on a huge swathe of legislation with just a yes or a no. And on top of that, when some

That is an extremely limited form of democracy, to only be able to decide on a huge swathe of legislation with just a yes or a no. And on top of that, when something like this is tied in with the trade deals, it would be impossible to reverse it because of the potential for an economic shock and destabilization of the financial system. If a government came in that wanted to shift the balance - for instance on this issue, of human health, quality of life, and the environment on the one hand, and agricultural productivity on the other - previously they would be able to change the law. Under TTIP, they have to renege on the trade deals covering, what, a third of the economy. That is to all practical purposes impossible. You might as well have written the law into the constitution. That doesn't mean I'm against all international treaties, but usually those cover issues which are inherently international. TTIP represents the movement of large swathes of what would once have been domestic legislation into international treaties, and the mechanisms which would have been appropriate for, say, an international convention on cross-border child abduction, are not appropriate for deciding whether or not a country is allowed to ban activities which are dangerous to the health of its citizens, within its own borders.